Syndication:

Jon Barrie, founder of the Independent American Party of New Mexico, and that party’s U.S. Senate nominee this year, has joined the Constitution Party and is now the state chair of the New Mexico Constitution Party. Barrie polled 3.63% for U.S. Senate in New Mexico last month, the best showing for a minor party or independent U.S. Senate candidate in that state since 1996, when the Green Party polled 4.39% for U.S. Senate.

Both the Constitution Party and the Independent American Party are currently ballot-qualified in New Mexico. In New Mexico, when a newly-qualifying party submits a petition to be recognized, the state grants it ballot access for two elections, not just one election.

I thought that too! CP and IAP are pretty much the same. 1-closing borders
2-banning abortions
3-banning gay marriage
4-no taxes
IAP seems only in Utah, Nevada, and Calif has AIP. CP at least is nationwide waiting for R’s to become a more centrist pro-choice Big Business party.

@2 – NM has bizarre qualification rules for independents/3rd party candidates: candidates are not nominated as such, they go out and get signatures to qualify to be nominated by a party. It was easier to run on IAP because he had more time to get 6,000+ signatures for a new party – CP, already on the ballot, had its clock running for candidates before he decided to get in.
Jon filed 10,000+ signatures but, according to the GOP Sec’y of State, fell 277 short of qualified names of registered voters. He went to court and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor.
@4 – the two parties have similar platforms, but CP is far more of a political vehicle, recruiting/training candidates, actively seeking ballot positions, building a grass roots movement, etc. IAP spends a lot of time on issue discussions, much of it centered on LDS theology.
Jon was endorsed by Virgil Goode AND Gary Johnson; he had the support of the state CP, IAP, and Libertarian parties … a real fusion candidate. He rec’d 3.63% of the vote – 412 more votes than former NM Gov. Gary Johnson.

That ain’t saying much, because nobody cares what you have to say anyway.

Because nobody in the Libertarian hierarchy cares about equal treatment for ballot access and free speech within the Libertarian anyway. They’re bent on power-grabbing and pushing everyone else aside, you included.

Fortunately, the 9th USA Parliament’s team of 35 POTUS candidates is trying to change that fast.

Want to learn how things are starting to improve and about how you can be a part of that change? Try the 9th USA Parliament’s Vote Counting School – kicking off on 1/1/2013.

“[…] the Libertarian Party of Oregon is an organization that is a sovereign entity and not a feudal territory of the LNC Inc., and that all registered libertarians in Oregon have an equal right in the organization.”

He should’ve done that a long time ago and needs to finalize the process of dissolving the New Mexico IAP. The IAP will be a parasite to the CP’s success in the state – the CP doens’t need another competing faction with similar goals and ideas.

Jon Barrie brought together the disparate conservatives/libertarians in a coalition in 2012; there will be future NM LP political ventures I’m sure because they are an independent and strong party. CP will have its political function as well. Both parties will compete and cooperate when campaign tactics and election strategies are reviewed and defined. That’ll drive the GOP/Dems crazy.

@11 Outcasts are those whose votes don’t count because the votes are liberally wasted and thrown away.

In regard to your question as to whether the Objectivist Party is an outcast, that depends on which election to which you’re referring.

If the OP gets votes cast within the LP and is elected to the national LP without censorship of party name or the throwing away of the voters’ votes which elected them, then my answer is no, the OP members aren’t outcasts.

Unfortunately, the LP’s voting system is designed to make their party smaller and smaller by using single-winner districts and plurality voting.

All voting not using ranked choice votes (RCV) in multi-winner districts of two or more is considered plurality voting by the vote counters at the 9th USA Parliament.

By using plurality voting, the IAP, CP and LP are actually perpetuating a two-party system.